er yes lmao. you can view it from any terminal in the world without any verification so yesKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Because its on the fucking Internet. Is this forum a public arena?
mmmm i'll pass on being able to picket veterans funerals and saying it was god work but ok!KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
No, you should also check out our free speech laws. Best in the world in my opinion.
Maybe I should send some of your posts inFatherTed wrote:
er yes lmao. you can view it from any terminal in the world without any verification so yesKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Because its on the fucking Internet. Is this forum a public arena?
did you actually just ask that?
go wildKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Maybe I should send some of your posts inFatherTed wrote:
er yes lmao. you can view it from any terminal in the world without any verification so yesKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Because its on the fucking Internet. Is this forum a public arena?
did you actually just ask that?
How is a person 250 miles away leaving you threatening answer-phone messages "presenting a threat"? It's intimidation, if nothing else, which constitutes 'assault' over here according to our common law. Sorry, can't argue with it. Would you agree that if a stalker used a phone for malicious purposes, or if a man threatened to kill someone else or break their legs via phone... that it constituted a crime? That it was enough to incite fear in the victim? All they're doing is taking that sort of commonly-accepted legal principle and applying it to the forms of direct communication and potential for personal intimidation on the Internet.nukchebi0 wrote:
How is a drunkard tens of kilometers from the stadium presenting any threat? Stupidity is a lamentable thing, but shouldn't be prohibited by the state unless it is manifest in actions that could potential injure others, such as speeding or lynching black people. I simply don't see how some moron sitting in his flat with an empty fifth of whiskey and his twitter account is doing anything other than advertising his lack of intelligence to the world.Uzique wrote:
Assault doesn't have to be physical, a "perceived threat" is enough. And your "don't follow him" statement doesn't really work - the guy was interjecting himself into a public discussion and personally picking out people and insulting them. It's personal, it's threatening, and it's different from the sort of voluntary-willing contract of discussion you have when you partake and visit a message board. I agree that policing the Internet and holding people accountable to things they say and do on the Internet is a dangerous line to tread... but I also think that this guy was clearly stepping way over a civil mark. And I completely condone the use of judicial action to punish people that are being ignorant racists. Sets a good example. A right to free expression is one thing; a right to being a fucking mong is something I will gladly see revoked.Jay wrote:
You may not karma the same person in a 24 hour period.
I agree completely. He wasn't shouting fire in a crowded theater, or marching down the street with a megaphone at 2 am, he was one part of the din that is the roar of internet stupidity. If you don't like what he says on twitter... don't follow him. If you don't want to read what someone writes about you on the internet... don't visit the site or open the thread.
It's one thing if what he said led to a physical assault on the guy, but that didn't happen, and afaik it wasn't even a realistic scenario.
what a dumb point. you have state law being pressed in arizona for example, the anti-trolling thing? if that material is posted in a state (lets pretend a state is a country) and it can be tracked to an individual in the state (country), that state (country) can prosecute. i'll admit our current laws cannot deal with the internet fairly, but that does not make this offence any less illegal as it stands.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I can choose to go to any website I want, therefore that website should not be allowed to post any racist material.
If I felt he had abused me severely enough via the Internet on grounds of my sexuality (let's just run with this for a second...) I could report him to the police, sure. He wouldn't be locked up but he would probably have a warning given to him in some way to inform him that his behaviour is not acceptable. Just in the same way that a US police officer would take aside someone being drunk or loud and abusive in the street and inform them that they're out of order. The only reason this guy got a jail sentence was a) he repeated his original offence multiple times, to multiple people (an aggravating factor); b) his offence was racial in nature (an aggravating factor); c) he was drunk at the time (an aggravating factor); and d) it was a case of high public interest and had already elicited outrage and a call for justice (certainly an aggravating factor). That's simply how the case would have played out in the court. The guy really had no mitigating factors or any real defense (being drunk is never a defense for a crime over here - voluntary intoxication is hardly the same as someone swerving off the road because of a medication's side-effect), so he got the harshest sentence. Of course an ancillary point of justice is to set a public example, and I imagine the UK courts want to send a strong message out to all the dumbass racists out there that think it's acceptable to racially abuse people via the pernicious and apparently consequence-free environment of Twitter.Jay wrote:
In fact, you called uzi a poof earlier. Homophobia is ok on the internet, but racism is different?
You Brits need to chill out
You can't really ask that sort of rhetorical question when your grammar and spelling are atrocious.nukchebi0 wrote:
do you mongs not understand american english?
Really, this is clearly just a complete contrast in mentalities dependent on where the individual in question was raised. You Brits seemingly don't comprehend that persecuting for racist speech is inherently bad, because its clearly a foreign concept (literally) to you. You're still arguing over the minutiae of the case applying to British law, while the Americans her are pointing out the entire law is flawed. Considering we speak a common language, I don't see any other explanation for the lack of understanding.
eleven bravo wrote:
you brits need to chill out
ALSO I already said that 3 pages ago, smartarse:Uzique wrote:
You can't really ask that sort of rhetorical question when your grammar and spelling are atrocious.nukchebi0 wrote:
do you mongs not understand american english?
Really, this is clearly just a complete contrast in mentalities dependent on where the individual in question was raised. You Brits seemingly don't comprehend that persecuting for racist speech is inherently bad, because its clearly a foreign concept (literally) to you. You're still arguing over the minutiae of the case applying to British law, while the Americans her are pointing out the entire law is flawed. Considering we speak a common language, I don't see any other explanation for the lack of understanding.
The fundamental difference between our legal philosophy is this: ours descends from a Roman law system focussed on justice for the common people, adapted through a melding of individual liberalism and utilitarianism (cf. Mill, Bentham), in which common good and peace derive from the combined moral interests of the individual within a wider collective. US Law is based on a strict Constitution that frames the individual at the center of everything, with inviolable rights. The result is that we end up having a lot of criminal prosecutions (i.e. brought by the State, R v) that you Americans would consider unconstitutional; on the other hand, you have a lot more civil litigation and pressing of charges that we over here would consider frivolous (because we have less of a focus of justice for individual concerns). Both systems have strengths and weaknesses.
Last edited by FatherTed (2012-04-05 02:09:42)
that was a dumb post jamieFatherTed wrote:
also, arguing england (i.e the ex-hub of the fucking british empire) does not have a handle on how to deal with intolerance vs a not-even 300 year old country trying to dictate how social justice should be...
In both cases nothing actually happened, just little shapes on a screen.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Yes it is different, legally speaking (at least in the US). There are laws and precedents for prosecuting for inciting action, even if nothing happened. That is not protected by the first amendment. You should check out our free speech laws, I really think they are the best (as I mentioned earlier).Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Ah, as they are called the "British board of film classification" I figured they had a state contribution a la bbc whereas they are infact self financing.Macbeth wrote:
Film ratings, like video games, are an internal industry thing. The industry polices itself. The government doesn't interfere. 'Banned' scenes are not really banned but were just taken out to get a certain rating. It's a marketing thing.
As for the main subject, its no different really to the "rioter" that went to prison for posting on twitter / facebook "who wants to start a riot" when nothing actually happened.
No we're defending a law that protects people from discrimination based on the colour of their skin (or their gender/sexuality, for that matter)Jay wrote:
I have this thing on my phone that lets me defer calls. I don't even know the person called! Amazing! Works just like an ignore function on the internet.
You're defending a law that's designed to stop people from being mean to each other. You can't get more lolzy.
dennis i had a really positive job interview today, and then i had sex and a nice italian meal and now i'm pretty drunk so just hold me baby ok xoxoxeleven bravo wrote:
that was a dumb post jamieFatherTed wrote:
also, arguing england (i.e the ex-hub of the fucking british empire) does not have a handle on how to deal with intolerance vs a not-even 300 year old country trying to dictate how social justice should be...